4 votes

Help me understand!

A conversation I had tonight blew my mind. I found myself in a political conversation with a guy I recently met, probably about my dads age, maybe a decade older. I quickly found out he was generally hard line republican spending most his news time on fox but investigating other mainstream news sources. He's the type of guy not holding anything back telling you his opinion and doing most of the talking so I found myself making my points by asking questions. I was drawn further into his monologue by comments referencing "rinos," displeasure of the country's direction, recent DHS actions, and displeasure bordering on anger with McCain and Grahm. So I dug a little deeper to see if he was borderline libertarian and could use a little push. Here's what blew my mind. In the same breath he would say how angry he was with the administration's and congress' movements against the people of the US but he advocated the use of drone strikes on Americans on American soil! (Of course this power should be checked by someone - maybe a congressional body but he didn't really know or seem to care who.) When I asked about unreasonable search and seizure and due process he essentially said f' the 4th and 5th amendments! "Of course there must be absolute proof" he says. What about a bank robber caught in video killing people? "No, don't drone strike him." Why? "He's not a terrorist committing mass murder." What??? He says we're already constantly monitored and he's not a bad guy so he wouldn't care if a drone buzzed over his house. But if he were plotting against the govt, then he would deserve to be blown up. WHAT??? He would accept any and all security measures designed to defend against terrorism - but he's mad at McCain, mad at and doesn't trust the administration/gov't leaders and would hypothetically support "Smith & Wesson" in ~40 years should the country continue it's current trend and if it were to come to that. So he believes "Smith & Wesson" could hypothetically be necessary at some point in the future but would grant the same gov't he doesn't trust the authority to constantly monitor him and kill him via drone strike should he ever plot against the government. WTF am I missing to make this make sense??? Oh he also mentioned all those sheeple out there and then bleated.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

his parents sent him to

his parents sent him to public school for 12 years and didn't bother to care what the government did to his brain. instead of raising a child, they took care of the basest needs, diapers and nutrition, and left his education to the government. 8 hours of sleeping. 8 hours of government indoctrination. That means they had to worry about the 8 hours they came in contact with him, and who needs that to worry about?

lawrence

Fascism is very popular in America today.

Hope the next person you speak to has more sense.

This may help you to understand.

you've got mail.

You can't fix stupid.

As P.T Barnum is believed to have said, "There's a sucker born every minute", and this guy is one of them.

If you can't even get him to use basic logic and put A and B together, like how he thinks his "Smith and Wesson" scenario may be necessary in the future to deal with oppressive government, but doesn't see that his support of oppressive government as counterproductive to this end, then you are not dealing with a rational person and you shouldn't waste your time on him.

You have limited time and resources, use them where they are most effective, use them on people who are capable of reason.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard